On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 01:53:52PM -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
> Graham Barr writes:
> > Likewise but there has been a lot of silence. Mainly I suspect due to
> > this list does not have the diversity of users to decide on a complete
> > list of modules for an SDK IMO.
>
> True, but so be it. We make the best decisions we can, and rely on
> experience to provide the rest. I figure that once SDK 1 is out the
> door, we'll get plenty of feedback on what worked and what didn't for
> SDK 2.
>
> I think it's better to be conservative and omit possibly redundant
> modules. We can always add them in SDK2, but it'll be hard to remove
> a module once it's in.
>
> This probably argues against FreezeThaw, unless Stephen's extralistual
> probings turn up evidence to the contrary. And I don't see his
> seeking external input as defeating the democratic process or anything
> like that.
Maybe, but no module should be in or out on the basis of one or two people.
And as you have saiud it will be hard to remove modules once they are in,
which should also be considered carfully when looking as FreezeThaw/Storable.
As input on that, I have not for a very long time seen anyone suggest using
FreezeThaw, but I frequently see suggestions to use Storeable.
However if ALL modules are not to be included/excluded on the same criteria
and on what people actually use the I would prefer all of my modules to be
excluded form the first SDK release. ON the basis that if people reaaly want
them they will ask and they know where to find them.
Graham.
